From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-64096-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F848138247
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:20:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24D42E0B24;
Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:20:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ve0-f174.google.com (mail-ve0-f174.google.com [209.85.128.174])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32927E0B1D
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 21:20:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ve0-f174.google.com with SMTP id pa12so7412910veb.5
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:20:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type;
bh=9tn7wrCSBu4sScXVF47vq3IKOVONQeF1iyf1YKOY7Wc=;
b=WWg02NC+lTNC1uf4yoxlDfJASL9QPnCWnoVepPg/K+Ed7ca6MndMn06wCgQ6J4V86M
NFRjwrIiPqH51zowtWbKQ+z0fFEL/Xt/EPBwDqppPBXefwRR4I6g0L1AfFJWUPZ7f+Tk
qZb9xQ1A+o9r51boORscCRqg0cWVC0TsfX6nXkFreHxZ/SiYoDFJpqoc5v4eMHGzdKrA
5H9FaNaV8Hue/hlvOXBK8kVpdREN9TekSWg8Jig+oU/djPUWT7LasE8r4WfBD06oORcG
wE6J6eynl5tyHe9beBz0wXIgE38tPFPXK69dRwZUeBI56TnVuG3h3YbyZbn3u74wRBoD
z+Ag==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.53.135 with SMTP id m7mr48528660vcg.12.1388697609368;
Thu, 02 Jan 2014 13:20:09 -0800 (PST)
Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com
Received: by 10.52.112.99 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Jan 2014 13:20:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140102151120.30a26041@caribou.gateway.pace.com>
References: <21188.38566.180273.751353@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<20140102065006.59a2bad9@caribou.gateway.pace.com>
<52C58F8E.9050005@gentoo.org>
<20140102172822.617e6452@gentp.lnet>
<21189.39321.229948.547287@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<20140102180258.477e0963@gentp.lnet>
<21189.44366.754407.921500@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
<20140102151120.30a26041@caribou.gateway.pace.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2014 16:20:09 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9ZYrcCp4GbMK98q664C18LCazjU
Message-ID: <CAGfcS_kdFgp9F5Zn3M0-v1fGhwQPZRdEmv03MXkAOL=d89f70Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: new global USE flag "srcdist"
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: 7f957263-9573-4d57-9d3b-96f321c594d3
X-Archives-Hash: 2576aa966af58fba44df82712e55939a
On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> That's only possible if we enumerate every license in every distfile we
> distribute, which I don't think is a good idea. Or at least not on the
> basis of a theoretic user that might not actually exist.
Why would we need to do that when we don't specify a LICENSE for every
single file we install from a package. LICENSE is a string of
licenses that apply to all of the files installed by a package, and
USE=srcdist LICENSE is a string of licenses that apply to all of the
SRC_URIs.
Personally I don't have any use for ACCEPT_LICENSE at all, and having
to specify the LICENSE for every single package in the tree is a lot
more work than additionally specifying additional licenses for the
rare tarball that contains extra stuff under a different license that
we don't install. I don't really see a downside to this approach - if
you don't need the extra info then don't look at it - it won't pertain
to 98% of the packages in portage anyway.
Rich